|
2 members (EasternChristian19, 1 invisible),
1,537
guests, and
92
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 222
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 222 |
I admire my monastic brethren who devout their lives to Christ and Prayer, and it is a goal of mine to incorporate as much as I can of their way of life into mine; not an easy thing. I found the posting below on another forum and thought that it would be a great discussion topic for our group. I thought that Fr. Alexander had some some great ideas on monasticism if only he he meant that these proscriptions be applied to the the laity, and not for people who have a true monastic vocation. Father Schmemann on monasticism
I am curious what my others on this forum make of Father Schmemann's writing on Monasticism. I found this on a blog called Bumi Dipijak.
"More and more often it seems to me that revising the monasticism that everybody so ecstatically talks about–or at least trying to revive it–can be done only by liquidating first of all the monastic institution itself, i.e. the whole vaudeville of klobuks, cowls, stylization, etc. If I were a staretz–an elder–I would tell a candidate for monasticism roughly the following:
–get a job, if possible the simplest one, without creativity (for example as a cashier in a bank);
–while working, pray and seek inner peace; do no get angry; do not think of yourself (rights, fairness, etc.). Accept everyone (coworkers, clients) as someone sent to you; pray for them;
–after paying for a modest apartment and groceries, give your money to the poor; to individuals rather than foundations;
–always go to the same church and there try to be a real helper, not by lecturing about spiritual life or icons, not by teaching but with a “dust rag” (cf. St Seraphim of Sarov). Keep at that kind of service and be–in church matters–totally obedient to the parish priest.
–do not thrust yourself and your service on anyone; do not be sad that your talents are not being used; be helpful; serve where needed and not where you think you are needed;
–read and learn as much as you can; do not read only monastic literature, but broadly (this point needs more precise definition);
–if friends and acquaintances invite you because they are close to you–go; but not too often, and within reason. Never stay more than one and a half or two hours. After that the friendliest atmosphere becomes harmful;
–dress like everybody else, but modestly, and without visible signs of a special spiritual life;
–be always simple, light, joyous. Do not teach. Avoid like the plague any “spiritual” conversations and any religious or churchly idle talk. If you act that way, everything will be to your benefit;
–do not seek a spiritual elder or guide. If he is needed, God will send him, and will send him when needed;
–having worked and served this way for ten years–no less–ask God whether you should continue to live this way, or whether change is needed. And wait for an answer: it will come; the signs will be “joy and peace in the Holy Spirit.”
Entry for Tuesday, January 20, 1981 in his Journals
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,028 |
I'm no expert on Fr. Schmemman, but the excerpts of his thoughts on monasticism and liturgy that I've come across sound exactly like the liberal talk that Catholic liberals have been using these past 50 years to demolish traditional Catholic liturgy and discipline.
The Catholic Church implemented exactly what Fr. Schmemman is advocating here some 40 years ago, when many (if not most) religious orders allowed their members to hold jobs, dress like laypeople, live simply but on their own, etc.
Guess what? It utterly destroyed the religious life in the Catholic Church!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
Mike,
I'm not defending the quote, some points, IMHO, have merit; others I would question. There is no universal advice for a potential monastic but it must be individualized. With that said, here is the context within which this comment was extracted (the same 1/20/81 journal entry.)
Two nuns left convent A (which had 8 nuns), went to convent B, then went further to create convent C. And so, all the time, everywhere, "Sketes of Transfiguration," and pretty soon each of them will have one monastic. There will be as many sketes as there are monastics.
It is hard to read Fr. Schmemann's mind, but he is apparently disturbed that "community life" in a monastic community isn't the attraction of these modern "monastics" but rather there more pride than obedience involved. These monastics have more or less become "public hermits) ..how's that for an oxymoron.
Fr Deacon Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
I am no expert either, but Father Schmemann, of blessed memory, seems to be a product of his particular times--a time when the ethnic Orthodox churches were desperately trying to find their identity, and to shed their ethnicity in their new found home of the U.S... In the process, the well known Orthodox religious figures of that era fell into some of the mindset of their Catholic and Protestant brethren, which, ultimately, was a liberalizing/modernizing one. *Fortunately* for the Orthodox churches, and for whatever reason or reasons, this pendulum did not swing too far, and it has swung back in recent times with new leaders and new priests who are returning to and/or honouring and respecting the traditions, disciplines and practices of the Church as it always was. Also, we must remember that theologians are not necessarily saints, so everything they say does not have to 'sit well' with us!  Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
I fail to see how Fr. Alexander's thoughts equate the nonsense many Latin Orders introduced in the 60s-70s. Most of Fr. Alexander's suggestions come right out of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers only adpated to modern living.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I'm no expert on Fr. Schmemman, but the excerpts of his thoughts on monasticism and liturgy that I've come across sound exactly like the liberal talk that Catholic liberals have been using these past 50 years to demolish traditional Catholic liturgy and discipline.
The Catholic Church implemented exactly what Fr. Schmemman is advocating here some 40 years ago, when many (if not most) religious orders allowed their members to hold jobs, dress like laypeople, live simply but on their own, etc.
Guess what? It utterly destroyed the religious life in the Catholic Church! Do you mean somewhat like this: Vatican II decreed that the people should `actively participate' in the mass. To the older idea that active participation could take place largely in silence and stillness was opposed the feeling that the congregation should always be doing things, saying prayers aloud, reading passages of scripture, presenting the bread and wine for the mass. The priest became less one who offered an awe-inspiring sacrifice, and more like one who presides over a community meal. Altars were turned round, so that the priest faced the people, rather than praying on their behalf to the East, as had been done from ancient times. (Critics of the new order often suggest -- rightly -- that this leads to a cult of the priestly personality.) The first part of the liturgy is now given over to scripture readings, somewhat in Protestant style, so that when the priest goes to the altar to say the actual canon of the mass, this can seem like an afterthought, rather than the focal point of the whole proceedings. The priest''s genuflections and other ritual signs of assent to the real presence, which in the old mass enacted an idea of worship and transcendence, seemed to have been cut to a minimum. For many, the remarkable beauty of the Latin text itself, set by so many great composers over the centuries, and a profound influence on the authors of the Book of Common Prayer, had helped create a sense of the sacred which had now all but vanished.
How did this happen? There had been a liturgical movement, strong in northern Europe, going back to the nineteenth century. It emphasised the intelligent participation of the laity, the use of missals, and a partial return to what were believed to be pre-mediaeval liturgical practices. This led to the half-conscious assumption that there was some golden age before the ``accretions'' that led to the elaborate liturgy of modern times. This was rather like the Protestant idea of the ``primitive'' Church before Roman ``corruptions.''
There was another line of thought. This was that the Council of Trent had been a tragedy just in that it had sealed the division between Catholic and Protestant in the sixteenth century. Trent had re-affirmed the hierarchical structure of the Church, the role of the priest, and the mass as the continual re-enactment of Christ''s death on the cross. The Anglican Thirty nine Articles say that the `one oblation of Christ is finished on the cross .Wherefore the sacrifice of Masses were dangerous fables and blasphemous deceits.' The underlying purpose of the new rite was reconciliation with Protestantism. Its chief inventor, Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, actually said: `We must strip from our Catholic prayers everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren, that is, for the Protestants.'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 429
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 429 |
Fr. Lance is right: Schmemann is not seeking to "modernize" Orthodox monasticism the way the Latin orders self-consciously sought to do in the 1970s, with ghastly results for all to see and mourn. Rather, what Schmemann is seeking to do here--and those familiar with his writings will immediately recognize this--is to argue against the closed, stuffy, precious, self-important, preening, self-consciously "Orthodox" (or, worse, "Byzantine," a word S rarely says without distaste for how it is taken and lived today) world of too many Orthodox Christians, who are, as S says, more interested in dressing up and parading about in "traditional" monastic costume than they are in really, truly, and deeply understanding what monasticism is about. In response to such a situation, he is recommending a "radical" solution--radical obedience, radically simple living, just as the Fathers would have us do. ("Radical," of course, means "returning to the roots," in this case, to the desert roots of monasticism in such figures as Basil, Anthony and others.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
The results may very well have been the same however.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760 |
AMM,
Our Ruthenian Churches encourage active partcipipaton --that is singing -- rather than sitting there reading from a prayer book --while God's gift of the Holy Supper is occuring.
Our bows, prostrations and numerous blessings and our reactions to them, as well as using the 5 senses is all active participation.
I respectfully suggest that the people whose quote you presented have a different agenda.
The East is proud of its faithful's "active participation."
The suggestion that our faithful come up during the Gospel reading would certainly be identified as one of the "evils" of active participation.
You raise some good points on this forum, but this is not one of them. Besides, let's use our energies to constructively improve our church and not cast stones at the Latin Church.
In filial love,
Fr Deacon Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Our Ruthenian Churches encourage active partcipipaton --that is singing -- rather than sitting there reading from a prayer book --while God's gift of the Holy Supper is occuring.
Our bows, prostrations and numerous blessings and our reactions to them, as well as using the 5 senses is all active participation.
I respectfully suggest that the people whose quote you presented have a different agenda.
The East is proud of its faithful's "active participation."
The suggestion that our faithful come up during the Gospel reading would certainly be identified as one of the "evils" of active participation. There are certainly differences in East and West. Aside from that however maybe you can recognize some of the same problems outlined in that article have potentially even manifested themselves in your own church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735 Likes: 6 |
Fr. Alexander was merely a product of the St Sergius Institute of Paris, and really presents nothing more than a modernized rehashing of the basic principles of the Berdyaev fallacies. Although he has maintained something of a "cult-like" following in America, he was, at best, a mediocre theologian, with some brushing with heresy (Sophiism). His works are, for the most part, dismissed in Russia and Ukraine, and he is not taught in the seminaries. But he was an active writer, and has familial ties with the powers that be in the American Metropolia, where he is regarded only slightly less than a saint. His strengths lie not in the wisdom of his writings, but rather in the availability of his words. Ah, the power of the press!
Alexandr
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
Fr. Alexander was merely a product of the St Sergius Institute of Paris, and really presents nothing more than a modernized rehashing of the basic principles of the Berdyaev fallacies. Although he has maintained something of a "cult-like" following in America, he was, at best, a mediocre theologian, with some brushing with heresy (Sophiism). His works are, for the most part, dismissed in Russia and Ukraine, and he is not taught in the seminaries. But he was an active writer, and has familial ties with the powers that be in the American Metropolia, where he is regarded only slightly less than a saint. His strengths lie not in the wisdom of his writings, but rather in the availability of his words. Ah, the power of the press!
Alexandr Thanks Alexander...and he was close to those modernizing leaders you and I know who belong/belonged to other jurisdictions.. I am not saying that his intentions were not proper, but as I also said, being a theologian does not make one a saint. Last year at St. Vladimir Seminary, we were present at a lecture/event in honour of him. Indeed, it was obvious from the presentation that he was quite highly revered. Regards, in Christ, Alice
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
|
|
AthanasiusTheLesser Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285 |
Fr. Alexander was merely a product of the St Sergius Institute of Paris, and really presents nothing more than a modernized rehashing of the basic principles of the Berdyaev fallacies. Although he has maintained something of a "cult-like" following in America, he was, at best, a mediocre theologian, with some brushing with heresy (Sophiism). His works are, for the most part, dismissed in Russia and Ukraine, and he is not taught in the seminaries. But he was an active writer, and has familial ties with the powers that be in the American Metropolia, where he is regarded only slightly less than a saint. His strengths lie not in the wisdom of his writings, but rather in the availability of his words. Ah, the power of the press!
Alexandr It's my understanding from one of my theology professors at Duke who knew Fr. Alexander rather well that he did not consider himself to be a theologian; rather he saw himself more as a historian of liturgy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 512 Likes: 1 |
I've been meaning to comment on this thread (and some of the things that have been discussed), but I've only now gotten a chance. I'm no one's spiritual father, nor am I an expert on monastic life. But I've seen a little, and some of the things on this thread have gotten me thinking.
Overall, I think the suggestion Fr. Alexander scribbled in his journal one day could be a perfectly good model for the ascetic life in the midst of the world, or for an idiorhythmic ascetic life. It might fit well someone in the position of, say, Saint Marcella of Rome (see the January 31 reference in the Simonopetra Synaxarion), who lived an ascetic life in the midst of said city and among worldly things.
However, it's by no means a universal model. As another thread pointed out, there are many different types of monasticism. Monasticism varies from place to place and no rule of prayer is exactly the same. There's an excellent article in the 2007 report of the Friends of Mount Athos that discusses (in part) some of the changes leading to the renewal in monastic life at the Monastery of Simonopetra. The book "The Church at Prayer" by Abbot Aimilianos of the same monastery also discusses the subject here and there. What is best for one situation and person may not be best for a seperate situation and person. This is why an experienced spiritual elder is so important. Obviously, if one were interested in a different take on monastic renewal I'd recommend some of the books published by various Athonites in the last century that have been translated into English.
Fr. Schmeman's model could work very well for someone, but it's by no means a one size fits all model and does not reflect the monastic life as experienced (say) in a large cenobitic monastery or for a extreme ascetic life lived in a wilderness (ref: St. Anthony or St. Makarios). His journal entry echos many other things he wrote about Church life - see the other thread on Fr. Alexander and rubrics, or for that matter just read his "Great Lent". One of his concerns was what he "symbolic nominalism which permeates today [Orthodoxy in America's] whole religious life [in the 1960s]". "The Great Lent" in many ways is a scathing (and all to relevant to my life) indictment of the contemporary religious culture and a call to renewal, which sees Orthodoxy only as a set of customs and which implicitly does not believe that Orthodoxy has any real meaning in life.
There's a talk by an Orthodox nun about Fr. Alexander's view of monasticism at SVS's podcast website, which I will listen to with interest.
Finally, I'm no expert but I'd think that the only thing that can destroy someone's religious life is their lack of desire to live it - changes in rules, dress and the like, no matter how ill-advised, cannot destroy one's thirst for God and for the life that flows from Him. I'm no expert on the American Catholic experience from 1950-1975 or so (I was born after this period), but it seems to me that if there was any crisis in religious life it's due to what's in the hearts of people one mass level. Perhaps the "changes" and the fruits thereof reflect what's in the heart?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 12 |
It should be obvious that Fr. Schmemann did not intend his comment to be imposed as a model for monastic initiation. He was offering a rhetorical critique of a certain kind of piety, as Sr. Vassa Larin's interesting talk at the SVS symposium makes clear. And I don't think he would restrict his critique to just postulants to the monastic life. In fact, I read it as a "model" for lay or secular piety, which should always be regarded as a type of monasticism anyway. I think he intended to attack an ideological, escapist, egocentric, and fetishized traditionalism that becomes blind to the ontological or existential realities of the heart. I certainly see this devotional tendency in me and some of my closest friends. It's a good cautionary word.
|
|
|
|
|
